Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?[W:200]

tosca1 said:

Speaking of plural.....I'm STILL waiting for your answer.


HOW MANY GODS DOES THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES HAVE?

Click to expand...

That's already been answered in this forum many many times.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

RGacky3 said:

Oh Boy, this is extremely dishonest ...

1 John 5
6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree. 9 If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son.

What you're posting is an addition from the middle ages, something that isn't in any of the origional manuscripts and modern bibles don't print anymore, because they know it's not in the origional text.

Common, you should know this.

Click to expand...

It's not dishonest.
Indeed, there's that controversy of the Johannine Comma. But apparently, you're all wrong!

Here's a very long article that explains the details of the controversy, and the refutation to your belief.
This posted excerpt is but a small fraction of the very detailed explanation.

I'm betting, based on my experience with you, you're not even going to read it. If you're not going to address and COUNTER-REFUTE THE DETAILED REFUTATIONS GIVEN FROM THIS ARTICLE,
then don't bother me with any more claims.


Essentially, the point to this brief history lesson is that we can understand that for nearly half a century, the large bulk of Christianity in the Greek-speaking eastern portion of the Empire - including two of the most prominent and prestigious patriarchates - were firmly in the hands of Arianism. A man of Arian sympathies was charged with preparing the "official" version of the Greek New Testament, by order of Emperor Constantine (the father of Constantius II, and who himself also had Arian leanings), which was finished during the Arian son's reign. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, given these circumstances, the strongly trinitarian witness of the Comma would have been removed from the "official" and subsequent copies of the Greek New Testament. Likewise, given the endemic Arian domination of the region for so long, it is quite appropriate to ask whether the influence of Arianism might have encouraged copyists to omit the overtly trinitarian comma from their subsequent copies of the New Testament - copies which would form the body of "parent" manuscripts from which most subsequent daughter manuscripts would come.

In addition, the very fact that there are variant readings for this verse among the Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma lends an air of authenticity to the presence of the Comma in these texts. The Comma in these texts underwent the same sort of natural process of scribal errors that we see in many other verses in multiple transmission of texts, which yielded slightly different wordings. It would seem less authentic if the verse appeared exactly the same, both in marginal and intratextual witnesses, as this would lend credence to the notion of emendation to bring these texts into conformity with the medieval recension of the Roman Catholic Vulgate.

Concerning the Alexandrian manuscripts, the hypocrisy of the Critical Text's standard-bearers can be seen when their treatment of I John 5:7 is contrasted with their dealings with other passages which find scant textual support. Using the relative paucity of manuscripts containing the Comma as an excuse (and ignoring the vast amount of external evidences to be discussed below), they will confidently claim that this renders the Comma "illegitimate", "inauthentic", or just a plain "fraud". But yet, we see that the Critical Text supporters include minority readings into the new versions of the Bible, whereas the King James' Textus Receptus reading is in the (often large) majority of the pertinent manuscripts.

In the passage above, Socrates is expounding upon the error of the bishop Nestorus, who was accused of teaching that the divinity and humanity of Christ were separated by the economy of His incarnation. The text which he refers to as having been present in "the ancient copies" is I John 4:2-3, and he clearly notes that there were those who initiated textual corruption in this very epistle so as to weaken or eliminate the witness to the deity of Christ. Much the same sort of heretical theology would approve of the removal of a trinitarian reading of I John 5:7-8, a passage which specifically links the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as being in unity.

The Evidence from Other Versions
Whereas the evidence for the existence of the Johannine Comma in the Greek tradition is weak and the evidence often circumstantial, the same can not be said for the verse in other ancient versions. The trinitarian rendering of I John 5:7-8 finds much firmer attestation in other versions tracing clear back to the middle of the 2nd century.


Defense of the Johannine Comma

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

tosca1 said:

It's not dishonest.
Indeed, there's that controversy of the Johannine Comma. But apparently, you're all wrong!

Here's a very long article that explains the details of the controversy, and the refutation to your belief.
This posted excerpt is but a small fraction of the very detailed explanation.

I'm betting, based on my experience with you, you're not even going to read it. If you're not going to address and COUNTER-REFUTE THE DETAILED REFUTATIONS GIVEN FROM THIS ARTICLE,
then don't bother me with any more claims.


Essentially, the point to this brief history lesson is that we can understand that for nearly half a century, the large bulk of Christianity in the Greek-speaking eastern portion of the Empire - including two of the most prominent and prestigious patriarchates - were firmly in the hands of Arianism. A man of Arian sympathies was charged with preparing the "official" version of the Greek New Testament, by order of Emperor Constantine (the father of Constantius II, and who himself also had Arian leanings), which was finished during the Arian son's reign. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, given these circumstances, the strongly trinitarian witness of the Comma would have been removed from the "official" and subsequent copies of the Greek New Testament. Likewise, given the endemic Arian domination of the region for so long, it is quite appropriate to ask whether the influence of Arianism might have encouraged copyists to omit the overtly trinitarian comma from their subsequent copies of the New Testament - copies which would form the body of "parent" manuscripts from which most subsequent daughter manuscripts would come.

In addition, the very fact that there are variant readings for this verse among the Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma lends an air of authenticity to the presence of the Comma in these texts. The Comma in these texts underwent the same sort of natural process of scribal errors that we see in many other verses in multiple transmission of texts, which yielded slightly different wordings. It would seem less authentic if the verse appeared exactly the same, both in marginal and intratextual witnesses, as this would lend credence to the notion of emendation to bring these texts into conformity with the medieval recension of the Roman Catholic Vulgate.

Concerning the Alexandrian manuscripts, the hypocrisy of the Critical Text's standard-bearers can be seen when their treatment of I John 5:7 is contrasted with their dealings with other passages which find scant textual support. Using the relative paucity of manuscripts containing the Comma as an excuse (and ignoring the vast amount of external evidences to be discussed below), they will confidently claim that this renders the Comma "illegitimate", "inauthentic", or just a plain "fraud". But yet, we see that the Critical Text supporters include minority readings into the new versions of the Bible, whereas the King James' Textus Receptus reading is in the (often large) majority of the pertinent manuscripts.

In the passage above, Socrates is expounding upon the error of the bishop Nestorus, who was accused of teaching that the divinity and humanity of Christ were separated by the economy of His incarnation. The text which he refers to as having been present in "the ancient copies" is I John 4:2-3, and he clearly notes that there were those who initiated textual corruption in this very epistle so as to weaken or eliminate the witness to the deity of Christ. Much the same sort of heretical theology would approve of the removal of a trinitarian reading of I John 5:7-8, a passage which specifically links the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as being in unity.

The Evidence from Other Versions
Whereas the evidence for the existence of the Johannine Comma in the Greek tradition is weak and the evidence often circumstantial, the same can not be said for the verse in other ancient versions. The trinitarian rendering of I John 5:7-8 finds much firmer attestation in other versions tracing clear back to the middle of the 2nd century.


Defense of the Johannine Comma

Click to expand...

Posting a long article which you haven't even read and then saying I have to refute the Whole thing is total bull****, I could JUST as easily do the same, but I don't, because I debate honestly.

But here we go.

The first paragraph is nothing more than speculation, we have NO pre Constantine manuscripts of 1 John 5:6-8 With the trinitarian interpolation, so it's just utter nonsense.

But the fact is the actual interpolation of the Trinity is ONLY found in 4 texts in the 1500s, and we know how it got there, Erasmus was pressured by the Church to put it in.

There are variant Readings for almost EVERY VERSE in the New Testament, so the fact that there are Variant Readings for 1 John 5:7 doens't mean anything

We don't find the verse in any quotations prior to the 1500s, not texts, nothing. Not in Greek, Not in Syriac, nothing?

Oh and one thing, do you REALLY think Arian Christians would have been able to doctor ALL the manuscripts? All of them? And the origional was only found in the 16th century? Common no

Now have you read the article? I don't think you have, if you had you'd realize how pathetic it is.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

RGacky3 said:

Posting a long article which you haven't even read and then saying I have to refute the Whole thing is total bull****, I could JUST as easily do the same, but I don't, because I debate honestly.

But here we go.

The first paragraph is nothing more than speculation, we have NO pre Constantine manuscripts of 1 John 5:6-8 With the trinitarian interpolation, so it's just utter nonsense.

But the fact is the actual interpolation of the Trinity is ONLY found in 4 texts in the 1500s, and we know how it got there, Erasmus was pressured by the Church to put it in.

There are variant Readings for almost EVERY VERSE in the New Testament, so the fact that there are Variant Readings for 1 John 5:7 doens't mean anything

We don't find the verse in any quotations prior to the 1500s, not texts, nothing. Not in Greek, Not in Syriac, nothing?

Oh and one thing, do you REALLY think Arian Christians would have been able to doctor ALL the manuscripts? All of them? And the origional was only found in the 16th century? Common no

Now have you read the article? I don't think you have, if you had you'd realize how pathetic it is.

Click to expand...

Well RGacky3, my source provides very strong arguments that the commas indeed existed earlier.

And btw, Syriac is not a good evidence!

Though it is often touted that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac," the Syriac evidence is as yet inconclusive as far as the manuscripts are concerned. It is very misleading to claim that the witness from this version knows nothing of the Comma. The Syriac manuscripts which have been studied and collated, and upon which this claim is ultimately based, constitute a very small total of the witness available to this version. The claim rests on a total of five collations,52 each utilizing only a handful of manuscripts, with the number used across all these standing at around a dozen manuscripts at most. This is certainly not a very exhaustive sampling of the hundreds of available Syriac manuscripts, most of which have not been examined in any detail nor any results from examination being published. Thus, the evidence from the Syriac version of the Bible must be considered inconclusive until the fuller body of evidence is examined.

Even given what has been looked at from the Syriac texts so far, we can see that the claim that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac" is in the very least rendered questionable on the basis of the existing manuscripts. There is evidence that the verse appeared in Syriac readings, and Jacob of Edessa, a Syriac Father, makes a reference to the verse around 700 AD.53 The Syriac edition of Giles Gutbier from Hamburg 1664, produced from the collation of two Syriac manuscripts, contains the verse.



Yet another line of evidence points to the likely early appearance of the Comma in the Greek witness. Forster noted that the Comma was cited three times by Vigilius Tapensis (a Latin North African writer who was earlier observed to have used the verse in another work) in a treatise on the Trinity, dating to 490-500, which he published under Athanasius' name.76 As Forster pointed out, Vigilius wrote this treatise while he was in exile in Constantinople because of the Vandal occupation of North Africa. Vigilius' treatise, especially since it was published under the name of one of the most famous Eastern churchmen and from the central point of Eastern Christianity, was intended to be an appeal to the Eastern (Greek) portion of the Christian world. As such, it is highly unlikely that Viligius would appeal to a verse multiple times, and attribute it to such a famous name, if this verse were lacking in the Greek New Testament at the time and were known or suspected to be a false quotation. That he could have done so and not been immediately caught would be incredible. Therefore, it stands to reason that, Latin writer that he may have been, when writing in Greek for a Greek audience under the name of a famous Greek theologian, the fact that his citation of the Johannine Comma went completely unchallenged strongly suggests that this is because at least some Greek textual witness of the day contained the disputed passage, despite the possible depredations of the Arians.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

Defense of the Johannine Comma


Anyway, the evidence for the concept of the Trinity lies not only on this verse.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CONCEPT BEING MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE, FROM BEGINNING TO END, IS WHAT MAKES IT THE TRUTH!

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

tosca1 said:

Well RGacky3, my source provides very strong arguments that the commas indeed existed earlier.

And btw, Syriac is not a good evidence!

Click to expand...

No ****, it's not in Greek, Syriac, early Latin, Coptic, NOthing, in otherwords you have NO EVIDENCE.

Though it is often touted that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac," the Syriac evidence is as yet inconclusive as far as the manuscripts are concerned. It is very misleading to claim that the witness from this version knows nothing of the Comma. The Syriac manuscripts which have been studied and collated, and upon which this claim is ultimately based, constitute a very small total of the witness available to this version. The claim rests on a total of five collations,52 each utilizing only a handful of manuscripts, with the number used across all these standing at around a dozen manuscripts at most. This is certainly not a very exhaustive sampling of the hundreds of available Syriac manuscripts, most of which have not been examined in any detail nor any results from examination being published. Thus, the evidence from the Syriac version of the Bible must be considered inconclusive until the fuller body of evidence is examined.

Even given what has been looked at from the Syriac texts so far, we can see that the claim that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac" is in the very least rendered questionable on the basis of the existing manuscripts. There is evidence that the verse appeared in Syriac readings, and Jacob of Edessa, a Syriac Father, makes a reference to the verse around 700 AD.53 The Syriac edition of Giles Gutbier from Hamburg 1664, produced from the collation of two Syriac manuscripts, contains the verse.



Yet another line of evidence points to the likely early appearance of the Comma in the Greek witness. Forster noted that the Comma was cited three times by Vigilius Tapensis (a Latin North African writer who was earlier observed to have used the verse in another work) in a treatise on the Trinity, dating to 490-500, which he published under Athanasius' name.76 As Forster pointed out, Vigilius wrote this treatise while he was in exile in Constantinople because of the Vandal occupation of North Africa. Vigilius' treatise, especially since it was published under the name of one of the most famous Eastern churchmen and from the central point of Eastern Christianity, was intended to be an appeal to the Eastern (Greek) portion of the Christian world. As such, it is highly unlikely that Viligius would appeal to a verse multiple times, and attribute it to such a famous name, if this verse were lacking in the Greek New Testament at the time and were known or suspected to be a false quotation. That he could have done so and not been immediately caught would be incredible. Therefore, it stands to reason that, Latin writer that he may have been, when writing in Greek for a Greek audience under the name of a famous Greek theologian, the fact that his citation of the Johannine Comma went completely unchallenged strongly suggests that this is because at least some Greek textual witness of the day contained the disputed passage, despite the possible depredations of the Arians.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

Defense of the Johannine Comma


Anyway, the evidence for the concept of the Trinity lies not only on this verse.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CONCEPT BEING MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE, FROM BEGINNING TO END, IS WHAT MAKES IT THE TRUTH!

Click to expand...

It's in Vigilus Tapensis? Ok then show me, show me where he quotes 1 John 5 With that verse in it.

Show me Jacob of Edessa's Reference to the verse and show me that it is an actual quotation of 1 John 5.

You're making claims here not backed up (well you arn't making them you're just copying and pasting texts).

Show me the References.

the fact is 0 copies have the interpolation up until the 16th Century, and in the 16th Century there were NO greek manuscripts showing it, Erasmus who made the greek edition was pressured to put it in my People in rome, who literally wrote up a greek text With the 1 John 5:7 interpolation in it. Before then No greek manuscripts, none.

Show me a pre-16th Century text With 1 John 5 With the interpolation in it.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

bump.

Kjw47 has brought up the Trinity on numerous occasions in the other thread. Do we really want to go through all that again all the way from the beginning....like as if we've never actually had a showdown on that before?

Just because the thread is now old and out of sight - doesn't mean it's no longer relevant. Or that facts would've changed. :lol:

Instead, perhaps he'd want to pick up where we've left off?

RGacky3 said:

That's already been answered in this forum many many times.

Click to expand...

Everyone on earth knows the JW,s give sacred service and worship to one God-Jehovah.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

tosca1 said:

bump.

Kjw47 has brought up the Trinity on numerous occasions in the other thread. Do we really want to go through all that again all the way from the beginning....like as if we've never actually had a showdown on that before?

Just because the thread is now old and out of sight - doesn't mean it's no longer relevant. Or that facts would've changed. :lol:

Instead, perhaps he'd want to pick up where we've left off?

Click to expand...

Not at all--there is 0 sense going back to the beginning-- hearts do not listen, they being clouded by this 2Cor 4:4)-- didn't your heart read those words already?? Words didn't help--possibly prayer the way--JESUS said it must be done to his Father could be of help. But when one actually learns that model prayer--the importance all pointed to the Fathers will--not can I have this, can I have this--that isn't prayer.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- AUNT SPIKER:

Since this is a Bible discussion in which proof is needed from the Bible itself, please quote your first four (4) verses of scriptures that indicate the Father (Jehovah), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the holy spirit/holy ghost are simply "different components" or "different parts of God."




Really? according to the definition of trinity, given by the Catholic Church, there are three separate persons.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be THREE PERSONS, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity | Seven whole days

Thirty-Nine Articles

Click to expand...

Not saying you are wrong in the substance here but the 39 articles are from the Church of England not the Catholic Church. FYI. Just a slight credibility correction.

Re: Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

Good morning, Gilbert, and peace be with you.